Mr Rymarksi argued that an order for his extradition on a reissued request was an abuse of process, as he had been discharged in the first set of proceedings under s.20 EA 2003 on materially identical facts. In essence, by electing not to appeal and instead issuing a fresh request, the CPS had unfairly circumvented the appeal criteria under s.28 and s.29 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin).
Allowing the appeal, Johnson J held that a second set of extradition proceedings based on the same offence and materially identical facts were an abuse of process. Applying Jasvins v Latvia [2020] EWHC 602 (Admin), the Court held that the second proceedings were a re-run of the first and a collateral attack on the first judgment.
Ben Joyes of 9BR Chambers acted for Mr Rymarski. Ben was instructed by Frank Brazell of Sperrin Law.
The transcript is awaited, but a case analysis is available on Westlaw.
